N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
GREENW IC H INSUR

ANC E C OM PANY, De fe nda

nt-third-pa

rty pla intiff - Appe lla

nt,
v. SHAR ON B ANKOFIER ; DUANE B ANKOFIER , Third-pa

rty -de fe nda

nt - Appe lle e s. No. 13-35127 D.C . No. 3:12-c v-00200-M O
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon M i c ha e l W . M osm a

n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d July

7, 2014 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : PREGER SON, PAEZ, a nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s. Gre e nwic h Insura

nc e C om pa ny (“ Gre e nwic h Insura

nc e ” ) a p pe a ls the distric t
c ourt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of Sha

ron a nd Dua n e B a n kofie r (“ the 

# FIL ED

JUL 18 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.B ankofie rs” ) in a dive rsity c a se brought by

Ore gon R e a lty

a g a inst Gre e nwic h Insura nc e . The distric t c ourt rule d tha t Gre e nwic h Insura

nc e ha d a duty to de fe nd the B an kofie rs in a

n unde rly ing la

wsuit the n pe nding in Ore g o n sta te c ourt. As the fa c t s a n d proc e dura l history

are fam ilia

r to the pa rtie s, we do not re c ite the m he re
e xc e pt a s ne c e ssa

ry to e xpla in our disposition. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm
. Unde r Ore gon la

w, [w] he the r an insure r ha s a duty to de fe nd a

n a c tion a ga inst its insure d de pe nds on two docum e nts: the c om pla int a nd the insura

nc e polic y .

. . . . The insure r ha s a

duty to de fe nd if the c om pla i nt provide s any basis for whic h the insure r provide s c ove ra g e . Le dford v . Gutosk

i , 877 P.2d 80, 82–83 (Or. 1994) (inte rna l c ita tions omitte d). Unde r Ore gon R e a lty ’ s insura nc e polic y , Gre e nwic h Insura n c e ha d a duty

to de fe nd c l a im s a

rising “ in the pe rform anc e of re a l e sta te se rvic e s.” He re , the
a lle gations in the

c om pla int we re suffic ie nt to trigger Gre e nwic h Insura nc e ’ s duty to de fe nd the B ankofie rs be c a use the c om

pla int c onta ine d a l le gations of “re a l
e sta te se rvic e s” re l ate d to the sa le of the prope rty . Am ong othe r things, the
c om pla i nt a lle ge s tha

t the B an kofie rs ne glige n tly struc ture d the sa le of the prope rty to fa c ilita te the subse q

ue nt inve stm e nt of the sa l e proc e e ds. Thus, be c a u se the 2c om

pla i nt provide d a

ba sis for whic h the re is c ove ra ge , Gre e nwic h Insura nc e ha d a duty to de fe nd the B ankofie rs. Gre e nwic h Insura

nc e ’ s a rgum e nts tha

t Exc lusions E a

nd J in the insura

nc e polic y ba r c ove ra g e are unpe rsua sive . Exc lusion E is ina pplic a ble
. B e c a use the de finition of the te rm s in Exc lusion J a re am b iguous, they should bec onstrue d in favor of the insure d. “ [I] f the polic y is a m biguous, weare re q

uire d to a pply the rule tha t insura nc e polic i e s a

re to be c onstrue d a g a inst thedra fte r.” C a in Pe trole um Inc
. v . Zuric h Am. Ins. C o. , 224 Or. App. 235, 241–42 (2008) (c i ting Hoffman C

onstr. C o. v . Fre d S. J

ame s & C o. , 836 P.2d 703 (Or. 1992)). AFFIRM E D
.

3